W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

RE: Weekly call for agenda items - xml literal

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:23:11 -0000
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDOEDMCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

>    o canonicalization

I am currently unclear what I need to do to move this forward.


I fear that my earlier postings this week may not have been helpful.
(Other than having got some useful input from the C14N people)

Options include (one of):
- I make a detailed proposal based on my earlier postings
- I present test cases of pairs of RDF/XML documents including xml literals
that may or may not be the same
- I discuss round-tripping, for example in an RSS use case, starting from a
minimalist approach of "let's just treat the element content as a self
contained string of well-balanced xml, and if its missing bits that's an
error", and the assumption that an RDF/XML document can pass unharmed
through an XSLT processor.

I am also interested in what the WG thinks about xml literal equality. M&S
explicitly does not specify such an operation.

We could choose to:
- not specify equality
- specify equality only for test cases
- specify equality only for test cases and the model theory
- definitively specify equality

I believe that any choice other than the first of these, will involve some
(possibly non-normative) dependency on C14N.


Bits of an example test case are:

...
<eg:foo rdf:parseType="Literal">
  <a></a>
</eg:foo>
...

AND


...
<eg:foo rdf:parseType="Literal">
  <a xmlns:rdf="http:..."></a>
</eg:foo>
...

I would like a short slot on the agenda to get feedback about next steps.
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 06:28:04 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:14 EDT